The Art of the Dictator

Dictators like to build a cult of personality around them. They do this with art, partly by posing for official painted portraits to make themselves look legitimate and creating their own art to build a mythical story based on their egotistical fantasies to invite the masses to follow along. They also manufacture easily reproducible images to put on every public surface for future intimidation and raise money for their regime with themed merchandise. They use art to try to sell the idea that they alone are capable of safeguarding the nation. But what is odd to me is how strikingly similar the portraits and public art are regardless of the decade, or of the leaders, faith, or nationality. It’s almost like the dictators are picking elements from a handbook or catalogue. There are various elements that the portraits employ to sell to the public that their leader is strong, invincible and omniscient. Some of the elements appearing in the art are the use of colour, physic, attire and specific poses.

     Right away when you start looking at painted portraits of dictators you notice that red, green and gold, white and black seem to be the most favoured colour schemes. Green is a military colour so that choice is obviously linked to military might and intimidation.  Gold is also an obvious choice. Gold is enlightening and inspiring. It can make a leader look elegant, affluent and successful. White can make a leader look closer to God or pure in thought and black or grey creates conformity. So, what about the colour red?

     In ancient times in Egypt, China and Rome red was seen as the colour of authority and power. It symbolises blood, sacrifice and passion and importance. The Church used it to symbolize the blood of Christ and religious authority. Monarchs used red to display their divine right to rule. Red is highly visible, stimulates arousal and creates urgency. Red is also the colour of revolution. During the French revolution red symbolized the fight for freedom.  Red was also used as a unifying colour during the communist revolution in Russia. It can symbolise the relationship between hope and suffering. Dictators use red to draw attention to their importance but to also signal change. Has anyone else noticed that Donald Trump always wore a red tie while he was campaigning in the last election? He succeeded in gaining office to the Presidency. The red tie has been gradually disappearing, maybe because he feels he is a permanent fixture and only needs it for important announcements or to appear aligned with favoured world leaders.

     Speaking of Donald Trump, I had a sudden observation of my own as I was scanning the art of infamous dictators. One thing I noticed was that the Caucasian dictators seemed to have glowing tanned skin. This surprised me because it seems that history so far the Western world has favoured lighter skin tones in leadership. Having tanned skin in an official portrait last century was an attempt to look more like the ordinary working man. It communicated that the politician was an ordinary man who had worked hard labouring in the fields, suffered and yet had risen by their superior dedication, intelligence and sacrifice to a powerful position to lead the masses.  Having tanned skin seems to have taken on a slightly different meaning lately. Sporting a tan is seen now as a sign of wealth and prestige and of time spent on a luxurious yacht or at the golf course, something their public will never have access to because they will never be connected enough to get there. Of course, dictators who loved painted portraits of themselves are now turning to AI to idealize their features. They also like to present an idealized physic and build the myth of being a strongman that doesn’t resemble what they look like in real life. These dictators are in deep denial as they try to catfish the masses.

     Military uniforms are still the desired choice for most dictators. Military uniforms symbolize absolute authority and create fear. But lately there seems to be a shift here as well with dictators opting for business suits instead. Pol Pot liked to wear black pyjamas while he was working to enforce his ideology. He wanted to create a classless and homogenous utopia. It was the rejection of the bourgeois life in the cities and foreign influences and everyone was required to wear the uniform to erase individuality and any chance of dissent. But when Pot posed for his official portrait he donned a dark banker business suit. He wanted to separate himself from his followers by making himself look more educated but also to legitimize himself as a world leader.

     Dictators always choose a power pose in their painted portraits to project power, authority and omnipresence. They like to stand tall with a hand on the hip or copy Napoleon by resting a hand in the fold of a formal coat. The viewer is forced to gaze upwards, establishing an invisible pedestal. Props like flags or cigars, red sloganeered hats and lately even a chainsaw have been used to symbolize strength, masculinity and nationalism. There is often a grand setting in the background to link the leader to the state. Dictators also like to pose with each other. Donald Trump has been inviting other dictators to the Whitehouse for photo ops. Kim Jung Un likes painted portraits of himself with his dead father and grandfather to show off his legacy. Pinochet famously posed in a photograph in front of a painting of Napoleon in an attempt to establish some kind of historical legitimacy, or in his own mind, to look heroic. While dictator’s last century enjoyed appearing serious about their mission by looking solemn, for the past few years smiling has become a popular way to cultivate a positive public image, project warmth and strength and inspire loyalty among their populations. The facial expressions in public art among dictators seem to be turning back to appearing more serious again. Putin carries a permanent look of disdain and Donald Trump wants to appear strong and “gansta” by using his mug shot as his official portrait.

     Donald Trump has taken to recently putting his name and mug shot on public buildings. This is nothing new; most dictators want their image everywhere for future intimidation. Saddam Hussein’s image was very prolific throughout Iraq as he also wanted to build the image of a romantic sex symbol or movie star gangster. His portrait even appeared on personal items like watch faces. It was a constant reminder for his citizens to be afraid and watch their step as they checked the time during their day. His people could not escape his presence. Donald Trump must have been inspired by Saddam’s use of art stamped trinkets and gangster cosplay.

     There haven’t been many portrait artists who have attempted sabotage on official leader portraits because it was risky, life threatening or career changing. Luckily, we have a couple of possible examples. In Paul Delaroche painting, “Napoleon Crossing the Alps”, Napoleon looks miserable and freezing cold as he sits upon an unmajestic mule in terrible weather riding across the Alps. It could have been artistic sabotage but it also could have been an attempt to make Napoleon look more human. Just recently we were graced with Donald Trump’s official portrait painted by Sarah Boardman.  In her painting, Trump looks lifeless, bloated and lost in thought. The pose mimics a poor quality manager of the week photo minus the name tag. It is very far away from the image of a brilliant, dynamic and powerful C.E.O. However, Boardman claims to be apolitical and stated her painting of Trump was not sabotage.

     Dictators can carefully craft an idealistic image of themselves by using portraits, public art and technology.  The goal is to create

 an image that can be mass produced and placed en-mass to induce fear and allegiance. We have seen enough examples over the past century to understand the symbolism in official portraits and be wary of the message.